List Frames

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'without changing global state', which reinforces these traits but does not provide new behavioral details beyond what annotations convey. For example, it does not mention concurrency behavior or pagination, so minimal added value.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, brief sentence that immediately conveys the tool's action and side-effect. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no extraneous information. The structure is front-loaded for quick agent parsing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple list tool with one parameter and an output schema (not shown but exists), the description covers the essential behavior. However, it omits details about the return format or which frame attributes are included, though the output schema likely documents these. Slightly more context on the data returned would improve completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the limit parameter has no description in the schema. The tool description does not compensate by explaining the parameter's meaning or effect on output. The limit is intuitive but still leaves ambiguity about default behavior and impact on results.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states that the tool 'list iframe/frame contexts on the current page', specifying a precise verb and resource. It also adds scope ('without changing global state'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like frame_find or frame_snapshot. This provides clear purpose and differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for listing frames and notes it does not change state, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like frame_find or frame_snapshot. There are no stated exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.